After Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Patients Having Either Circumferential or Segmental Labral Reconstructions for the Management of Irreparable Labra Show Clinical Improvement Based on Proper Indications

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Augmentation Demonstrate Favorable Patient Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review current literature evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed with the following key words: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscopy OR arthroscopic) AND (reconstruction OR augmentation OR irreparable). PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and Scopus were queried in October 2022 using the criteria established in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Studies were included if they involved patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation and reported preoperative and postoperative PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Only original research articles were included. Survivorship was defined as a nonconversion to total hip arthroplasty. Outcomes present in 3 or more studies underwent further statistical analysis with forest plots. Heterogeneity of studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Five studies were reviewed, including 359 revision hip arthroscopies (335 with complete follow-up) with a follow-up that ranged from 2.2 to 5.2 years. Four studies reported on outcomes after revision labral reconstruction and 1 study reported on labral augmentation. Two out of 5 included studies evaluated for statistical significance between preoperative and postoperative outcomes. Three out of 5 studies reported a rate of at least 70% for achieving minimal clinically important difference in at least 1 PRO. At minimum 2-year follow-up, survivorship ranged from 93.5% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients that underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation demonstrated improvement in PROs with mixed rates of achieving clinical benefit and rates of survivorship at minimum 2-year follow-up ranging from 93.5% to 100%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III to IV studies.

Similar Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction in Irreparable Cases Using the Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon With an All-Inside Technique for Small Defects and the Iliotibial Band for Large Defects

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and satisfaction rate of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction for an irreparable labral tear with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Additionally, this study aimed to compare 2 different reconstructive techniques for small and large labral defects: the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon (IHRFT) autograft with an all-inside technique used to repair small defects (≤3 hours) and the iliotibial band (ITB) autograft for large defects (>3 hours).

METHODS

A total of 24 hips treated with the IHRFT were compared with 24 hips treated with the ITB. All patients underwent clinical evaluation before surgery and during the most recent follow-up (42 ± 18 months). The evaluation included patient satisfaction, the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score, the Hip Outcome Score-sport subscale, the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale pain score.

RESULTS

All clinical scores were significantly improved (P < .001) at the latest follow-up in both groups. The final satisfaction was 7.1 ± 2.8 and 8.8 ± 1.6 for the IHRFT and ITB groups, respectively (P = .006). There was a significant difference in age (41.2 ± 6.0 years for the IHRFT group and 33 ± 8.5 for the ITB group; P = .004) and in surgery time (147.3 ± 39.4 minutes for the ITB group and 105.3 ± 25.7 for the IHRFT group; P < .001). One patient (4.2%) in the IHRFT group underwent total hip arthroplasty after 21.3 months (P = .999).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 2-year follow-up, treating small defects using IHRFT and larger defects using ITB resulted in good patient-reported outcome measures with a low rate of complications and failures. The ITB group reported a higher level of satisfaction at the final follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Defining Thresholds and Predictors for Achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after primary hip arthroscopy has been determined; nonetheless, the PASS still needs to be defined for revision hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To define minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) after revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors of achieving the PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included if they had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12. PASS was calculated using the anchor-based method. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the PASS. A multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving the PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 318 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this group, 68 patients (72.1% female and 27.9% male; mean age, 32.9 years) answered the PASS anchor question. Achievement PASS rates were 58.8%, 41.2%, 52.9%, 60.3%, and 52.9% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the PASS for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12 were 0.912, 0.888, 0.857, 0.903, and 0.871, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination. The PASS for the mHHS was 76 (sensitivity, 0.809; specificity, 0.905), for the NAHS was 86.3 (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 1), for the HOS-SSS was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905), for the VAS was 3 (sensitivity, 0.830; specificity, 0.905), and for the iHOT-12 was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905). Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of achieving PASS for the NAHS (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.940-0.996; P = .027), as patients with a BMI ≤25.4 had 1.03 times higher odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS.

CONCLUSION

After revision hip arthroscopy, the minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 76, 86.3, 64.3, 3, and 64.3, respectively. The odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS was 1.03 times higher for patients with a BMI ≤25.4.

Changes in Hip Labral Size Two Years After Arthroscopic Repair Are Correlated With Preoperative Measurements on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PURPOSE

The purposes of our study were 1) to investigate the potential change of labral size after arthroscopic repair and 2) to analyze the relationship between acetabular labral size and functional outcomes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, patients diagnosed with labral tear and undergoing hip arthroscopic repair in our institution between September 2016 and December 2018 were included. Magnetic resonance imaging was obtained preoperatively and postoperatively, and the labral length and labral height were measured in three anatomic sites: 11:30, 1:30, and 3:00 positions. All patients completed at least 2-year follow-up. Patients whose preoperative labral size in any position wider than 2 standard deviation away from the mean were identified as the hypertrophic labrum group and were compared with the control in radiographic variables and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) and the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL).

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients (82 hips) were included, and the mean follow-up period was 39.54 ± 8.48 months. Significant improvement in PROs was determined before and after surgeries. Twelve patients were identified with labral hypertrophy and had higher postoperative mHHS scores, higher postoperative iHOT-12 scores, and greater improvement in HOS-ADL compared with the control group. Patients with larger preoperative anterosuperior labral height exhibited more favorable clinical outcomes. Meanwhile, no significantly morphologic change in labral size was determined.

CONCLUSION

There is no significantly morphologic change in labral size of superior, anterosuperior, and anterior labrum after arthroscopic repair. Patients with hypertrophic labrum achieved more favorable clinical outcomes compared with those with normal-sized labrum.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Editorial Commentary: Successful Revision Hip Arthroscopy Requires Accurate Diagnosis of the Cause of Failure: "One-Size-Fits-All Surgery Is Not Appropriate"

As hip arthroscopy increases in scope and quantity, treatment options for patients who did not respond to primary surgery expand as well. As our techniques improve and become more nuanced, it is crucial that our understanding of individual patients' root cause pathology keeps pace to ensure that the right patients get the right surgery.